News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on P is not equal to NP. Parent comment

Re:P is not equal to NP by llimllib on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @01:23AM (#347161)
arXiv == not peer reviewed. I know I'm not qualified to judge this paper; anybody in here that is?

edit: He appears to be a professor at Uppsala University in sweden: http://user.it.uu.se/~stenake/ .

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P is not equal to NP by jacobscott on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @01:25AM (#347163)
Sorry, the key point is that the assertion:

"Therefore, P is not equal to NP, is true and provable in a simply consistent extension B" of B"

does not necessarily imply P \neq NP (the caveat being the B" and B stuff). I'm not really a complexity theory guy, but I would say WHP that this either

(a) does not apply to the most general forms of computation (e.g., what people mean when they ask P =? NP)

(b) is wrong

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P is not equal to NP by Alex3917 on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @09:18AM (#347385)
"arXiv == not peer reviewed."

Although amusingly, I heard that Cornell was sued for not allowing creationists to post their physics theories there.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P is not equal to NP by neilc on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @01:32AM (#347172)
His homepage is amusingly antiquated, even for an academic.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P is not equal to NP by tlrobinson on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @03:25AM (#347232)
I think "minimal" is the preferred term.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P is not equal to NP by jncraton on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @01:17PM (#347648)
Perhaps, but antiquated probably applies given that he has yahoo listed in his "hot links"
[ Parent | on HN ]